
/ 




U.S. £^0-V^0 /W iyw^g^. (ioV^-W\. 

VI nt. ^o-ygSLVw «•v^t a w Jl -rep x-e.'^^i 'a\z 
FORUM OF THE PRESIDENTS. 



Committee on Election of 

President and Vice-President, 

House of Representatives, 

Tuesday, March 29, 1910. 

Mr. Bennett. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, 1 thank you for your 
kindness in affording me this opportunity of laying before you the 
merits of the bill which I introduced in the Sixtieth ^ongress and 
again in this in relation to a forum of the Presidents. It is a very 
simple bill. At the time that I introduced it in the Sixtieth Congress 
the only former President living was Mr. Cleveland, a Democrat, and 
the Republican President had announced his intention of retiring at 
the end of his term, so that I assumed that there would be two former 
Presidents, a Democrat and a Republican, to whom the bill would 
apply and therefore that there could be no accusation of partisanship. 
The aim of the bill is to provide a dignitied forum for the expression 
of the views of former Presidents. 1 think that there is a general 
feeling that a man who has occupied the position of the President 
never again becomes a private character. His views on public ques- 
tions are always heard with respect and have great weight. This was 
certainly so regarding Mr. Cleveland and is unquestionably true in 
relation to Mr. Roosevelt. Former Presidents ought not to be driven 
to the columns of magazines for the expression of their views on 
public questions. It is unfair to them and in a way unfair to the 
people. 

The knowledge that a man gains in the presidency is a national asset 
and the property of the whole people, and the experience ought to be 
of benefit therefore to the country at large. I think everyone will 
agree with me that the sixteen years that John Quincy Adams devoted 
to public legislation in the House of Representatives were of infinitely 
more value to the country than his four years in the presidency, and 
largely because of his four years in the presidency. I think that a 
former President, occupying a seat in the House of Representatives 
by the gift of the whole people, would be as nearly nonpartisan as it 
is possible to be. For instance, he would be as nearly nonpartisan's 
the justices of the Supreme Court are, for, of course, a man carries 
with him onto that bench the acquired views and experience of a life- 
time. It has been suggested that a former President on the floor might 
inaugurate a policy in opposition to the President in the White House, 
and around these 'foci parties might be built up. I do not think that 
would occur, but if it did it would not be a bad thing. This country 
is governed by parties, and, in my opinion, the best judgment of the 
majority is that it should be continued to be governed by parties. The 
46887—10 



0? 
^ 

FOKUM OF THE PRESIDENTS. \^ ,V^ 



^ Vs yO 



trouble with our parties at present is that thej' are not divided on any 
great questions of principle; the line of demarcation is too indistinct. 

There is too much following of men, and too little opportunity to 
combine with others in the effort to foster a principle, and while I do 
not think that anything of the kind would occur with the ex-Presidents 
taking part in the deliberations of Congress, 1 can not see any ill 
results if the}" do. 

Mr. Hardwick. In other words, if he lost his nonpartisan character, 
the results, according to j^our idea, would be good all the same? 

Mr. Bennett. Yes. 1 do not think he would. I think he would 
appreciate the great honor conferred on him, not by a party, because 
he is not elected to Congress, but conferred on him by the whole 
people, because he has held the highest office in their gift. 

Mr. Hardwick. When he came to the discussion and determination 
of questions that were essentiall}'' partisan, or were often partisan, in 
their character, would he not naturall}" be governed b}' the opinions 
he had entertained all his life, and would he not be forced into the 
attitude of standing up for the convictions he has always had, and thus 
would he not lose the verj' thing for which you praise him now? 

Mr. Bennett. To the same extent' that a judge on the Supreme Court 
bench throughout his term of office is influenced b}- the habit of mind 
and the political doctrines in which he believed- -yes; but further than 
that 1 do not think so. 

Mr. Gillespie. Do 3^ou think he would be as nonpartisan as a 
judge? 

Mr. Bennett. I think so; I do not see why not. There are few 
occasions when a man goes out of the presiclenc}^ and strives to get 
back later; they are extremely rare. Mr. Cleveland did, and was suc- 
cessful. Mr. Grant did trj- unsuccessfully. Just at the moment I do 
not recall an}" other man who went through the presidenc}" and after 
he was absolute!}" out of office really strove to again become a candi- 
date. I may be in error in my recollection. 

The Chairman. Mr. Bennett, let me make this suggestion. You 
cite the case of Mr. Cleveland, who is now dead. I believe there is no 
passionately hostile feeling against him, either on the part of Repub- 
licans or on the part of those members of his own party who at one 
time so widely differed from him. If he had been in the House of Rep- 
resentatives during the years from the time he left the presidency 
until his death, do you not think it would have been unfair to the 
Democratic Members of the House w"ho did not agree with Mr. Cleve- 
land's position on the money question? 

Mr. Bennett. I do not think it would have been any more unfair 
than to have Mr. Cleveland expressing the opinions which he did, and 
he always expressed his opinions, as he did outside of Congress ; be- 
cause you will doubtless recall that on financial and other questions he 
made his views public. But my point is, it is much more dignified, 
and would be much better for our institutions, and would be appreci- 
ated by the people generally if a forum to take the place of the 10- 
cent magazines were provided for the expression of the views of the 
ex-Presidents. 

Mr. Diekema. Do you think the Congressional Record is calmer in 
expression than the magazines? 

Mr. Bennett. Yes; even the Congressional Record is calmer than 
the pages of some of the magazines. 



FOEUM OF THE PRESIDENTS, 3 

The Chairman. What was in my mind also in connection with the 
instance I suggested a moment ago was this, an ex-President of the 
United States who would have the right to a seat in the House, and 
the salary of a Member, would, I take it, have the duty to attend. 

Mr. Bennett. He would have the privilege of attending whenever 
he thought that his views would be of service to the country. 

The Chairman. I think we would all feel that he ought, as a gen- 
eral proposition, to be present paying attention. 

Mr. Hardwick. Because he could not tell what time it would be 
necessaiy. 

The Chairman. 1 think we all agree that an opportunity has always 
with it its correlative duty. 

Mr. Bennett. An obligation. 

The Chairman. An obligation. I think a man who has held an 
office in the gift of a party has sacrificed a great deal of his right to 
oppose that part}^, for the reason that his opposition to the party is more 
then than his personal opposition. He has a chance, by opposing his 
party, to do it more injur}^, vastly more injury, than his views stand- 
ing merely upon their own weight could possibly accomplish. Would 
it not put a former President of the United States in a very embarrass- 
ing position, where his sense of duty to his own beliefs, his intellect, 
would conflict very much wnth his sense of duty to the part}'^ which put 
him in power ? To illustrate what I mean : I have the highest respect, 
and alwa3"S will have, for Grover Cleveland, and yet I alwaj's felt that 
the Democratic party had a right to complain of Grover Cleveland's 
use of the almost overwhelming influence and publicity of the high 
office he had held, against that part3\ It is a thing I could not have 
done. I do not say he did wrong, but my sense of obligation to the 
people who had taken a chance on advancing me would not permit me 
to do that kind of thing. I will go a little further. I could go out 
of here now and be interviewed by one of the great Democratic news- 
papers against the Kepublican party, and I could obtain for my views 
an amount of publicity and discussion and importance that the}^ are 
wholl}^ unentitled to — a degree of importance that would never be given 
to a similar interview in behalf of my part}' . 

Mr. Bennett. The answer to that, it seems to me, is this: That the 
only ex-President who ever came back to the House came back as a 
Member for sixteen years, and he came back, as I read history, as an 
extremely independent Member. 1 think there were times when he 
stood out against the whole House, both sides, and yet it is the unani- 
mous verdict of history, I think, that John Quincy Adams's sixteen 
years of service in the House were of infinitel}^ more service to the 
country than his four years in the presidency, and that they were 
largel}^ so because of the knowledge he had gained in the presidency. 

Mr. Hardwtck. During that time he represented a constituency 
with the same responsibility that any other Member has. 

Mr, Bennett. We could not pass a statute going to that extent. I 
think the gentleman from Georgia will agree with me in this, that to 
have stayed here sixteen years Mr. Adams must have owed some obli- 
gations to his constituency, which it was more or less of a drag on him 
to have discharged, but he must have discharged them or he would 
not have stayed here sixteen years. 

Mr. Hardwick. Undoubtedlv. 



4 FORUM OF THE PRESIDENTS. 

Mr. Bennett. Now, you put an ex-President in the House, free 
from all obligations whatever, and knowing that he comes, not from 
any constituenc}^, and not from any part}^, Republican or Democrat, 
but is given the place as a gift to him from the whole people^t seems 
to me if anything could operate to divest a man of partisanship, that 
kind of a selection would. It would divest him from partisanship and 
give Congress and the people the chance to utilize the tremendous 
sources of information that come to ever}^ President. 

Mr. DiEKEMA. Here is another thing. Probabl}^ the reason why 
ex-Presidents are so well considered b}^ our whole people is the fact 
that they are not dragged into that partisanship. If, on the other 
hand, they are dragged into it, which they must be — a man who has 
been President, elected b}^ his party, remains either a Republican or a 
Democrat — if he is dragged into this general discussion the opposite 
party must continue to attack him; that would be their plain duty. 

Mr. Hardwiok. They will not hesitate to do it, either. 

Mr, DiEKEMA. A man who is an ex-President is not a saint; he is 
still a human being, with partisan feelings, the same as he had before, 
and instead of ceasing to attack such a man and use every possible 
opportunity to extol him, the opposite would be the situation, and the 
ex-Presidents would die, not as the nation's heroes, but as partj^ heroes. 

Mr. Bennett. I think j^ou magnify that, Mr. Diekema. Our 
ex-Presidents who remain in private life have not been chary in ex- 
pressing their opinions through the avenues of the public press, and 
everything like that. Still, there is not one of them who has been 
divested of his character as a great hgure in contemporary histor}'^, 
not one of them, although, as 3'ou suggest, if they were Democrats 
and expressed views that did not meet the approbation of the Repub- 
lican party, we disagreed; if they were Republicans and suggested any 
views that did not meet the approbation of the Democrats, the}^ disa- 
greed. But I think we overlook the fact that the people are pretty 
good jurymen after all, and that the}" disregard the chaif and look to 
the merits, and that they make the proper and necessar}^ allowance 
for the exigencies of partisanship which arise with the necessity for 
part}" government. That does not essentially detract; that is my 
answer to that. In other words, I think at times we do not give 
enough credit to the real feeling of the people and do not have enough 
appreciation of the fact that most of theni, if not the majority of 
them, are just as smart as we are, and in many instances smarter, and 
that they weigh these things, and that they expect a certain amount 
of partisanship. 

Mr. Gillespie. It seems to me President Roosevelt understood the 
situation. He himself saw the necessity of cutting himself loose from 
home politics, quitting the country — practically getting disassociated. 
His stand was, "Let my policies be tried;" and you people are engaged 
in trying to preserve the good of his policies and throwing off what is 
bad, and all that. It seems to me that the bill will tend to perpetuate 
personal rule, apart from the merit of the proposition; that after a man 
has been President eight years, and had time to advance his policies, 
and put his whole administration behind him. that then the people at 
least ought to be free from any personal weight belonging to him by 
virtue of the office and the confidence everybody has expressed in him. 

Mr. Bennett. Let me ask you this question: Assuming what for 
a moment I do not believe, that Mr. Roosevelt should come back here 



FORUM OF THE PEESIDENTS. 5 

and not be satisfied with Mr. Taft's administration. He is one of the 
editors of a publication. We all know that the columns, not only of 
that publication, but any publication in the country, would be open to 
him for anything he might want to say. If he wanted to criticise the 
Taft administration, and therefore increase his personal following, if 
that course would do that, he could do it anyway, as 1 said a moment 
ago. The power inheres in him, not because of his position, but 
because of the office he has held. We can not really take from that or 
add to it, but would it not be infinitel}^ better for the country that in 
the highest legislative forum of the country, Mr. Roosevelt, if he had 
views to express, could express them, and that those who did not agree 
with him could get up and oppose them? 

Mr. Gillespie. But you have put him in a political position where 
issues are being fought out. If you give him a chance to retire, he 
could exercise his own judgment about when he should come in. The 
position would not force him into the fight. 

Mr. Bennett. So can he under this bill. He can exercise his option 
as to when he shall speak and when he shall remain silent, just as he 
does as a private, citizen. All that this bill does is to substitute, if 
any ex-President desires it, the public forum for the private forum — 
newspapers and magazines. 

Mr. Gillespie. I do not say I favor it, but if 3'ou give him the 
franking privilege and a salaiy as an ex-President, it seems to me it 
would cover the idea you have far better than to make him a Member of 
Congress, except for the voting. 

Mr. Bennett. Except there is a certain dignity attached to the 
expression of one's views in the House, which I think we all appreciate. 

Mr. Gillespie. I do not see it that way. 

Mr. Bennett. Otherwise we could not struggle to get here, as 
most of us do. And in relation to the people at large, it is certainly 
a much more dignified thing that the ex-President should express his 
views in the people's forum rather than at so much a line or so much 
a word through the columns of the highest bidder among- the maga- 
zines or the newspapers. That is the part, I do not like. I never 
liked to see ex-President Cleveland's name associated with an adver- 
tisement to increase the sale of a magazine. 

Mr. Gillespie. I agree with you on that. 

The Chairman. I think we are all thoroughly agreed on that 
proposition. 

Mr. Bennett. That is something that grates on ni}^ sensibilities, 
and, gentlemen, unless you give an ex-President this sort of an outlet 
3^ou drive him into the other. 

Mr. Haedwick. The only question is whether this would not be 
worse for him than the other. 

Mr. Bennett. I do not think so. I never liked to see Mr. Cleve- 
land's portrait printed in a magazine only a column separated from 
advertisements for tooth powders and other things. But I recognize 
that the country demanded expression from him, and that is the only 
medium that is provided. If he wants to say anything he has nowhere 
else to go except in the magazines and newspapers. M\' idea is, let us 
give him a place where he can meet the demand which always exists 
for the views of an ex-President, particularly on great questions which 
are not necessarily partisan at all. 



6 FORUM OF THE PRESIDENTS. 

This railroad bill that has come up is not necessarily partisan, any 
more than the Hepburn bill was in the Fiftj^-ninth Congress. The 
great questions of conservation will be hard to fight out along party 
lines, and although the}" succeeded in dividing on the postal savings 
bank in the Senate on party lines, I do not see how there is really any 
great question of moral principle involved. On these great adminis- 
trative questions there will be no man in the United States whose 
judgment has been better educated than that of an ex-President, no 
matter who he is, and this gives him a chance to express himself. I 
thank you, gentlemen, for j'^our courtesy, and that is all I have to sa}^, 
unless there is some other question you would like to ask me. 

Mr. Hardwick. Do you think it is a good idea or not, or have you 
formed an opinion on the subject, for us to adopt the English plan of 
having secretaries — that members of the Cabinet have, at least, seats 
on the floor of the House, with an opportunity to advise the House? 

Mr. Bennett. I have not given it enough thought. 

Mr. Hardwick. I have been very much interested in that question. 
Of course, we would get a vast deal of information at first-hand in 
that way from these people about these bills we are passing. 

• Mr. Bennett. Yes. I never saw but one Cabinet officer come 
down on the floor to work for a bill, and he was successful. Of 
course, he had not the right to speak. 

Mr. Hardwick. You have seen the British Parliament in session? 

Mr. Bennett. Yes. 

Mr. Hardwick. You know very often, at almost every critical 
juncture, a cabinet minister advocates or opposes the subject. 

The Chairman. In the English system of government not only is 
what j'^ou have said true, but the initiative of most legislation, and the 
control of it, its progress through the House of Commons, is in the 
hands of the Government. 

Mr. Hardwick. In some respects that makes more intelligent legis- 
lation. 

The Chairman. Oh, yes, that is a very fine system, but it is radi- 
cally opposed to our own, that seeks to have the dissociation entirely. 

Mr. Hardwick. Exactl}^, of everything except the influences that 
spring from the people themselves. 

The Chairman. We want the legislative power to be entirel}' dis- 
tinct, and they put their executive oflScers in their legislative bodies. 

Mr. Gillespie. Theirs is an open way; ours is kind of a covered 
way. We do that, all the same. Any party that is in power will go 
to the President and the Cabinet and confer with them. Really it 
comes from them. If it was out in the open and the opponents were 
given an opportunity to cross-examine, it seems to me it would be 
safer and more candid. 

Mr. Bennett. I am not sure but what it would be a good idea, 
Mr. Hardwick. 

Mr. Hardwick. I am inclined to that opinion m^'self . 

Mr. Bennett. I have not thought the thing through at all, and, I 
think, there would be disadvantages, of course. When you think of 
that, the Cabinet officer would have a tremendous advantage on the 
floor. He would have all sources of information. 

Mr. Hardwick. Really, Mr. Bennett, to be candid with you, he 
would not have near as much advantage over a Member as some tre 
mendous personality like ex-President Cleveland, whose name has 



FORUM OF THE PRESIDENTS. 7 

been mentioned, or our present ex-President, Mr. Roosev^elt. Any 
Member who undertook to hitch up with Mr. Koosevelt just at present 
would be taking a bigger chance than with an}^ Cabinet officer. 

Mr. Bennett. He would get his name in good company. 

Mr. Hardavick. And he might possibl}^ be ruined, too. 

Mr. Bennett. I am in favor of anything, I will say, generally 
speaking, that will bring the maximum amount of information to the 
House of Representatives before it decides, from all sources, and, as 
far as an}^ indication goes, I would be inclined to think there is a good 
deal of merit in that suggestion, but of course it would be reversing 
our policy entirely, and unless one has thought it out thoroughly he 
ought not to express an opinion. 

Mr. Gillespie. Would not this meet 3"our views'? Suppose you 
authorize the ex-Presidents, an}^ time they wish to express themselves 
on any public questions, to reduce their views to writing and send 
them to the Speaker of the House and authorize him or require him 
to put them in the Congressional Record 'i 

Mr. Hardwiok. That is practically what happens now. ' 

Mr. Gillespie. A Member can get up and put it in now. This 
would require the Speaker, just as if it is submitted like the Presi- 
dent's message, to have it printed in the Record. That would give 
them a forum. 

Mr. Bennett. Yes; that gives a start toward it, and if you add to 
that the franking privilege, I do not know but what that is as much 
as 3^ou can get at this session of Congress for a new project. 1 am 
alwa^'s for a dicker. [Laughter.] Seriously, I think even that, if 
the committee would not go further than that, would be a valuable 
thing, because it would give the ex-President a forum, which I think 
he ought to have, and then, if he went into the magazines and the 
newspapers, he could not say, " 1 have no other place to go," because 
we could sa}'^, " We have opened the columns of the Congressional 
Record to you, and we have given 3^ou the right to send through the 
mails free." That would not go as far as I would like to see it go, but 
it would go toward meeting what I have in mind, and 1 think it would 
be a very advantageous thing. 

The Chairman. We are very much obliged to you, Mr. Bennett. 

(Thereupon, at 11.40 o'clock a. m. the committee proceeded to other 
business.) 

o 



M- 




Hollinger Corp. 



